|
A Paladin in my group recently required an atonement and was complaining a bit how it was unfair so I wanted to get some feedback.
Scenario: A powerful demon was safely sealed away in a magical vault in the dungeon. The group had been given the name of said demon and knew that it was somewhere in this dungeon. The door to the vault was huge and glowing with decipherable magical runes which would have provided clear hints of what was inside.
The party when encountering the door slaps in a key without bothering investigate anything at all. No reading the runes. No checking for traps. I tried to pause and make opening the door seem really dramatic to see if someone would say stop, but no one did anything.
The doors open and the demon offers a deal in gratitude to the party. It only wanted out of this prison so it offered to not kill them but they need to get out of its way. So demon would only attack those that attacked it or got in its way. The party initially tried to fight the demon but they were clearly outmatched.
After the downing a couple party members the demon, amused by their feeble antics, repeated its offer. The party fled, the paladin dragging one downed member away. The demon, semi-true to its word, declined opportunity attacks as they fled although it did take a swipe at a party member who was blocking its way as an 'encouragement' to move.
The demon walks out of the dungeon and proceeds to terrify the countryside.
Pally's Opinion: Shouldn't have lost powers because they were trying to save others (dragging away the downed party member).
GM Opinion: Pally lost powers and required atonement because:
A. They freed a powerful fiend into the world through carelessness.
B. Once doing so the pally did not do her utmost to stop it (ie didn't go down swinging). Note that this wouldn't have resulted in her death. The demon most likely would of just knocked the pally to negative HPs and leave her to live with the guilt knowing what she had done.
C. The saving others argument doesn't really hold up since the demon had shown no interest in attacking unconscious party members so the pally really didn't save anyone. The thing just wanted out so it could be free to slaughter villages as it pleases.
Was I as GM being reasonable here?
Why were they in the dungeon?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My perspective: no.
Demons keep their words when mystically bound to do so, and when it amuses them. The promise to spare anyone not fighting it was revokable at the demon's pleasure. So all the paladin had to go on was his / her sense of how dangerous the demon was.
Once the demon demonstrated that it was far more powerful than the party, it was the paladin's duty to take the long view: to make sure that the demon was eventually destroyed. That means staying alive, and keeping his / her comrades alive. It probably doesn't mean sacrificing his / her life to the demon.
There might have been other options: if the party had a way to send a message back to Good Guy HQ, they could have warned the world about the demon and then sacrificed themselves, keeping the demon pinned in battle until help arrived.
But I don't think that running from a hopeless fight is cowardice. When there are serious stakes involved, I'd consider it the chivalric virtue of prudence.
Lots of stuff.
One way or another the Paladin (and the rest of the group) was responsible for letting the demon go free. Whether or not he intended to let the creature out doesn't matter. He was careless and every evil deed the creature does is on his head.
I might've let the paladin keep his powers if he devoted himself to stopping the creature and reducing the harm it's caused (healing the hurt, giving money to repair the damage done, trying to force it away from innocents etc...).
When he deviates from that his powers wane.
That's not to say requiring an atonment right off the bat wouldn't be called for, the Paladin should feel very badly about this, and it doesn't sound as though he did.
Tell the paladin to man up. He knew there was a powerful demon trapped in the dungeon. They find a mystically sealed huge door. They proceeded to unleash a crazed monster too strong to stop onto the world.
The paladin should feel guilty about it and voluntarily seek atonement. Enforcing the need for atonement if the paladin doesn't volunteer for it is just one of those things. He does not need to pay excess 2500gp for particularly bad conduct, unless he starts arguing with the divinities.
|
|
Why were they in the dungeon?
The party was in the dungeon to kill a separate BBEG that was threatening a local town who was in addition looking for the demon in order to release it. The demon's vault was in a hidden part of the dungeon that the BBEG was unable to find as of yet. The characters didn't know what exactly what the demon was or its alignment but did know it was clearly evil. I tried to give enough clues that opening the vault was a bad idea but they still did it anyway.
The paladin did its powers back fairly quickly after this with the atonement with no further consequences and other than the gold cost it didn't seriously impact the group.
My take, for what it's worth. If your description is accurate and they knew there was a bound demon somewhere in the dungeon and you described the door accurately to them, the party certainly wasn't very smart to release it. My suspicion is that they may have thought they had plot immunity - that you wouldn't possibly throw something at them that they had no chance of defeating. A lot of GMs don't, as a rule. If you do have challenges in your campaign that can't be defeated, it's probably best to warn your players of that up front, before the campaign starts, so they'll be more cautious.
That said, the paladin bears partial responsibility for releasing the demon, and it should now become her life's work to track that demon down and destroy it as soon as she is able to do so. I wouldn't take her powers, but this would be her atonement for keeping them. Now, if she washes her hands of the situation and walks away, accepting no responsibility, then we're entering fallen paladin territory.
As for retreating from the battle rather than going down swinging, I have no problem with that in this situation. She tried to fight and the group lost, clearly outmatched. There was no good purpose to be served by throwing her life away in continuing a fight she can't win. Now, if there were some point to it, like buying her party time to retreat on their own or warn people or get more powerful help, etc., then sure she should fight to the bitter end. Ditto if there is any chance, even a remote one, to win the fight and/or defeat the demon. As you describe this case, however, she had no chance, and the only good she could do was escape with her wounded party members and live to warn others of the evil that has been unleashed and figth again another day to defeat that evil.
So, bottom line, the paladin is definitely disgraced and needs to atone by dedicating herself to making it right, but shouldn't lose her powers. After all, she'll need those powers to set things right.
The biggest deal I'm seeing here is the careless releasing of the demon... and even that is slightly suspect -- I'm not saying you are a poor communicator but hints can be missed.
I think the paladin did do his utmost to stop it short of dying uselessly. When he realized that he couldn't kill it now, and needed to live to stop it later I think his retreating was the only valid tactical option left. Better to lose the battle and not his life, than to lose the battle, his life, and the war against this demon.
I would not have 'required' the paladin to seek atonement... and even if I did I definitely wouldn't have charged him the GP for grossly violating his oaths.
I do think the paladin needs to work from this point forward on stopping that demon though.
|
|
My suspicion is that they may have thought they had plot immunity - that you wouldn't possibly throw something at them that they had no chance of defeating.
So, bottom line, the paladin is definitely disgraced and needs to atone by dedicating herself to making it right, but shouldn't lose her powers. After all, she'll need those powers to set things right.
Yeah...I think the plot immunity idea played a role here. I should of made that more clear from the beginning.
However, from the outset I did treat the loss of powers as a temporary situation that could be rectified with an atonement spell. So there was no talk becoming an fallen/ex-paladin or permanent loss of abilities. The player was being somewhat lackadaisical about being a Paladin up to this point too, so this was one way of emphasizing the seriousness of the role with no long term consequences.
|
My suspicion is that they may have thought they had plot immunity - that you wouldn't possibly throw something at them that they had no chance of defeating.
So, bottom line, the paladin is definitely disgraced and needs to atone by dedicating herself to making it right, but shouldn't lose her powers. After all, she'll need those powers to set things right.
Yeah...I think the plot immunity idea played a role here. I should of made that more clear from the beginning.
However, from the outset I did treat the loss of powers as a temporary situation that could be rectified with an atonement spell. So there was no talk becoming an fallen/ex-paladin or permanent loss of abilities. The player was being somewhat lackadaisical about being a Paladin up to this point too, so this was one way of emphasizing the seriousness of the role with no long term consequences.
I agree on the atonment for releasing the fiend (at least without being more careful about checking first). As for the lackadaisical paladin, I would also talk to them out of game as to what you expect to see in the class.
I also wanted to say, Paladins seem to cause more off-table talks for a DM than any other class. Mostly all about alignment and the codes.
|
|
The biggest deal I'm seeing here is the careless releasing of the demon... and even that is slightly suspect -- I'm not saying you are a poor communicator but hints can be missed.
Well, the party knows Demon X in in the dungeon. The door has decipherable runes (they have been deciphering other runes in the dungeon so they know this is possible) that basically say Demon X is inside. They just didn't bother to examine the door. *shrug* I don't know how much more obvious I could be without straight out telling them. At some point just kicking in the door needs to have consequences.
They let a powerful evil into the world. That's cause for atonement in and of itself, whether it's carelessness or not. The rest, not so much, but you only need one reason to require atonement. If the character doesn't want to atone for their massive mistakes, and aren't dedicated to being a champion of order and goodness, they probably shouldn't be playing a Paladin.
Only "A" holds up as a decent cause for atonement. However, if that were the case, it should have went into effect the moment they released the demon. This is apparently not so, since the paladin was able to fight the demon. Slapping on the consequence after things have already resolved is needlessly antagonistic, especially since your reasons B and C would assume that the paladin had metagame knowledge.
There is no way that the paladin could have known whether the demon would really spare them, especially since demons, unlike devils, are by no means bound to any contracts or promises they make. Rejecting its offer and attempting to destroy it are already indicative of the paladin trying to rectify his/her mistake.
Only "A" holds up as a decent cause for atonement. However, if that were the case, it should have went into effect the moment they released the demon. This is apparently not so, since the paladin was able to fight the demon. Slapping on the consequence after things have already resolved is needlessly antagonistic, especially since your reasons B and C would assume that the paladin had metagame knowledge.
There is no way that the paladin could have known whether the demon would really spare them, especially since demons, unlike devils, are by no means bound to any contracts or promises they make. Rejecting its offer and attempting to destroy it are already indicative of the paladin trying to rectify his/her mistake.
No, rejecting a demon's offer and attempting to destroy it are what a Paladin should do in any event. They still have to make amends for releasing it in the first place.
Only "A" holds up as a decent cause for atonement. However, if that were the case, it should have went into effect the moment they released the demon. This is apparently not so, since the paladin was able to fight the demon. Slapping on the consequence after things have already resolved is needlessly antagonistic, especially since your reasons B and C would assume that the paladin had metagame knowledge.
There is no way that the paladin could have known whether the demon would really spare them, especially since demons, unlike devils, are by no means bound to any contracts or promises they make. Rejecting its offer and attempting to destroy it are already indicative of the paladin trying to rectify his/her mistake.
I disagree 1000%. No good god is going to revoke their Paladin's abilities while they are still facing the demon they released through carelessness. I don't think any good god would revoke their Paladin's powers while they are still in a combat with evil.
However, as soon as that combat is over, then those powers would go bye bye.
Now, a LN deity is a different story. They might indeed rip the powers away immediately. So might a LG deity if the Paladin is in battle against neutral opponents, even really powerful ones.
It seems like the group as a whole made a really stupid mistake. It might be a bit unfair to single out the paladin at that point. My suggestion is to have some angel or NPC point out to the party as a whole that what they did was really bad for the world, and that as a whole they should feel obligated to stop it. You could even make it a new plot hook or something(although it looks like the group has put the scenario. The paladin should feel particularly bad -he made a mistake- and should receive a vision from his deity warning that the fiend is now his responsibility- but he shouldn't be singled out as a whole for what was basically party stupidity- the group should probably pay with him.
Paladins have their special abilities because they adhere to a higher standard of behavior. It is their job to say, "Wait, are we sure this a good idea?" I'm not saying Paladins should be jerks, but there were a lot of opportunities this paladin just plain missed to keep this from happening. Paladins who neglect to keep their closest companions from doing evil are culpable.
Should a paladin have to Atone for being stupid (low INT) or for being reckless (low WIS)?
Scenario: A powerful demon was safely sealed away in a magical vault in the dungeon. The group had been given the name of said demon and knew that it was somewhere in this dungeon. The door to the vault was huge and glowing with decipherable magical runes which would have provided clear hints of what was inside.
The party when encountering the door slaps in a key without bothering investigate anything at all. No reading the runes. No checking for traps. I tried to pause and make opening the door seem really dramatic to see if someone would say stop
When it releases enormous evils into the world? YES.
GM Opinion: Pally lost powers and required atonement because:
A. They freed a powerful fiend into the world through carelessness.
B. Once doing so the pally did not do her utmost to stop it (ie didn't go down swinging). Note that this wouldn't have resulted in her death. The demon most likely would of just knocked the pally to negative HPs and leave her to live with the guilt knowing what she had done.
C. The saving others argument doesn't really hold up since the demon had shown no interest in attacking unconscious party members so the pally really didn't save anyone. The thing just wanted out so it could be free to slaughter villages as it pleases.
I might get behind A, though most paladins' codes have something about not being stupid (there wouldn't be any paladins around).
B is complete hogwash, though. What is he supposed to do? Die uselessly, having no chance to stop an obviously overpowering enemy? That would accomplish nothing, nothing at all. Oh, except for getting the paladin killed, who would then have no chance of committing further acts of good in the figure.
C is irrelevant.
Honestly: If I were that player, and B was the reason my paladin lost his powers, I'd pack my things and go.
My suspicion is that they may have thought they had plot immunity - that you wouldn't possibly throw something at them that they had no chance of defeating.
So, bottom line, the paladin is definitely disgraced and needs to atone by dedicating herself to making it right, but shouldn't lose her powers. After all, she'll need those powers to set things right.
Yeah...I think the plot immunity idea played a role here. I should of made that more clear from the beginning.
However, from the outset I did treat the loss of powers as a temporary situation that could be rectified with an atonement spell. So there was no talk becoming an fallen/ex-paladin or permanent loss of abilities. The player was being somewhat lackadaisical about being a Paladin up to this point too, so this was one way of emphasizing the seriousness of the role with no long term consequences.
I fully agree with you that you have to make the paladin's code meaningful, and if there was a consistent pattern of not following the code, you needed to pick a spot to make your point.
That said, I'm personally not a big fan of the atonement spell. In my mind it is a crutch designed to give players who don't really want to roleplay a mechanical way to remove their "sins" without having to really atone. Just pay your money and have your sins washed clean - kind of like buying indulgences in the bad old days of the Catholic Church. I prefer to make atonement more personal, more focused on righting the wrongs created by your misdeeds, even if it comes at tremendous personal (not necessarily financial) cost. In this case, it means taking on a new mission in life, to kill, capture or otherwise stop that demon, and not resting until it's accomplished. But that's old school, and may not appeal to everybody.
|
|
Only "A" holds up as a decent cause for atonement. However, if that were the case, it should have went into effect the moment they released the demon. This is apparently not so, since the paladin was able to fight the demon. Slapping on the consequence after things have already resolved is needlessly antagonistic, especially since your reasons B and C would assume that the paladin had metagame knowledge.
I hear what you and others are saying here. A, B, and C aren't really meant to be separate reasons. The main reason for the atonement was just releasing the demon. If the pally decided to valoriously attack the demon without retreating I would of accepted that as an "atonement", but just fleeing wasn't sufficient cause alone for needing the atonement spell.
For example, if this demon had just dropped down out of the sky on the party I wouldn't have any real expectations here or give any consequences for retreating. I don't believe that Pallys need to be Lawful Stupids but they do need to deal with their own messes.
I don't remove a Paladin's powers if the only crime they committed was stupidity. The guilt baggage I inflict on the character will be punishment enough. Now if the Paladin involved does not put in sufficient effort afterword to redress this issue, then things could get sticky.
I also think there s hould be a spectrum of punishments between a stern word and complete removal of class abilities.
This, essentially.
Opening the door was chaotic, not evil. It could just have easily led to the room the BBEG was hiding in. Even so, even a good action can have bad consequences. The paladin code is one that requires good action. An important part of an action being evil is intent. Had the group read the runes, learned that the demon was inside, and decided to release it for the thrill of the fight or whatnot.
That isn't to say the paladin shouldn't pay for his mistakes; however, stripping him of his powers, especially when evil still remains to be slain, just seems too harsh.
I don't remove a Paladin's powers if the only crime they committed was stupidity. The guilt baggage I inflict on the character will be punishment enough. Now if the Paladin involved does not put in sufficient effort afterword to redress this issue, then things could get sticky.
I also think there s hould be a spectrum of punishments between a stern word and complete removal of class abilities.
This, essentially.
Opening the door was chaotic, not evil. It could just have easily led to the room the BBEG was hiding in.
Paladin's have to be Good, and Lawful. Doing something Chaotic Stupid is just as valid a reason to loose his powers as doing something Lawful Evil is.
I don't remove a Paladin's powers if the only crime they committed was stupidity. The guilt baggage I inflict on the character will be punishment enough. Now if the Paladin involved does not put in sufficient effort afterword to redress this issue, then things could get sticky.
I also think there s hould be a spectrum of punishments between a stern word and complete removal of class abilities.
This, essentially.
Opening the door was chaotic, not evil. It could just have easily led to the room the BBEG was hiding in.
Paladin's have to be Good, and Lawful. Doing something Chaotic Stupid is just as valid a reason to loose his powers as doing something Lawful Evil is.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).
Unless that chaotic act violates the paladin code, nothing in the RAW suggests that he should lose his powers for performing it.
The paladin must be Lawful Good, but it's a tad harsh to cause an alignment shift over a single instance.The demon's release was unfortunate, but the paladin did not willingly bring about that consequence. So the only thing in question here should be that blasted door.
So, you created a dungeon with a demonic prisoner that you knew the party couldn't defeat? And you let that prison be open by a relatively simple lock?
Uh, no, there's no reason for the paladin to have to go thru any atonement.
Yes, the party did a stupid thing. Opening a door isn't a lawful or a chaotic act. But, you could have easily said "The key doesn't work," or "The aura of fear emanating from the door means no one but the paladin can get anywhere near it, and even the paladin knows something is very, very bad and very, very powerful behind that door."
I have yet to meet a group of players who doesn't want to open locked doors. Yes, foolish actions have consequences. That consequence is now loose upon the land.
And why would an atonement spell be needed? Should not the paladin's deity now charge the paladin with hunting down and destroying the creature? It's a lot harder to do that without all the paladiny benefits.
In summary:
Party's act was opening a door. Because the party has totally not opened locked doors in the course of their careers. (That strange smell is the smell of sarcasm.)
GM's acts include stuffing a demonic prisoner that the party had absolutely no hope of defeating into the path of their current adventure. And then blaming the party (and the paladin) for their poor choices.
|
|
It seems like the group as a whole made a really stupid mistake. It might be a bit unfair to single out the paladin at that point. My suggestion is to have some angel or NPC point out to the party as a whole that what they did was really bad for the world, and that as a whole they should feel obligated to stop it. You could even make it a new plot hook or something(although it looks like the group has put the scenario.
Oh yeah. This demon is going to show up as a major villain now. One that the party will need to defeat together at some later point when they are stronger. I think this will turn out to be a really interesting plot point.
Also, let me reiterate that it was temporary loss of powers (it didn't kick in until the following morning and they took care of the atonement right away) and a modest fine was all that happened.
Well I think the need for atonement might have been a bit overboard -- but not completely so and the GM seems to have made a point of getting him to the atonement quickly.
I think this is a case where stupidity should be painful, and it was. The atonement was a bit more pain, but not horribly out of line. It isn't like it was ultimate punishment or something that was incurable.
|
|
I don't remove a Paladin's powers if the only crime they committed was stupidity. The guilt baggage I inflict on the character will be punishment enough. Now if the Paladin involved does not put in sufficient effort afterword to redress this issue, then things could get sticky.
I also think there s hould be a spectrum of punishments between a stern word and complete removal of class abilities.
Interesting point. I personally hold Paladins to higher standards than other other PCs, and maybe am on the stricter side of things.
Let's look at a real world example, if a police officer got sloppy and allows a serial killer to go free should that officer face consequences? The pally in my game got the equivilent of a temporary suspension pending investigation which isn't too extreme, and suitable in my opinion for an such an act.
Now if the group let that thing out knowing it was extremely powerful demon and that it would ravage the countryside, and the Paladin just let it happen that would be a deliberate evil act. In this case it would be go directly to fallen Paladin. No atonement allowed. Do not collect 200gp.
This is a great discussion through and thanks for all your viewpoints!
My personal beliefs:
1. If you are a DM, and you think a Paladin character has done something worthy of losing his or her powers, then you are wrong.
2. If you think you have a really, really, really good reason to strip a Paladin of his or her powers, and you ask the player about it, and they disagree, then you are still wrong.
3. If you think you have a really, really, really good reason to strip a Paladin of his or her powers, and you ask the player about it, and they think it'll be a fun bit of roleplaying, then and only then may you do so and not be wrong.
"Dying nobly for the cause" is great and all, but mechanically enforcing that is b%!~~#+s.
I appreciate your opinion and it is a good statement of the school of thought that there is really little difference between the player and the GM, which as a corollary assumes that not being a doormat for the players is bad GMing.
However, IMHO, it's dead wrong and the logical consequence of it would be that, unless the players are incredibly good at roleplaying and self-policing, being a paladin will have no meaning other than having different mechanical advantages from a fighter or a cleric.
The GM is in charge. He should work with the player to develop the code of conduct, taking into account the god the paladin serves, and the character's own history and personality. Once the code is agreed to, however, it is the GM's job to enforce it. He can,and perhaps should, do so with a light hand, giving plenty of hints and guidance and warnings before taking a drastic step like stripping powers or even requiring atonement, but he should neve, ever, feel he has to ask the player's permission to do so.
Paladins are different. They are the only character class that has such a strict code of conduct with rules that specifically call for a loss of powers if the code is willfully violated. If you can't live with that restriction, don't play the class.
GM Opinion: Pally lost powers and required atonement because:
A. They freed a powerful fiend into the world through carelessness.
B. Once doing so the pally did not do her utmost to stop it (ie didn't go down swinging). Note that this wouldn't have resulted in her death. The demon most likely would of just knocked the pally to negative HPs and leave her to live with the guilt knowing what she had done.
C. The saving others argument doesn't really hold up since the demon had shown no interest in attacking unconscious party members so the pally really didn't save anyone. The thing just wanted out so it could be free to slaughter villages as it pleases.Was I as GM being reasonable here?
B. A paladin is not required to go down swinging, and the paladin has no way of knowing you won't kill him without metagaming. A paladin is also doing a disservice to the people he is trying to protect by fighting a fight that can not be won. If he goes down fighting he can't do anything to stop the demon. If he lives to fight another day, and helps his party he allows himself to have a greater chance to take the demon down later. Not dying is the better idea, and the best hope for taking the demon out.
C. How did he know the demon would keep his word? The party members could have also bled out. Demons are known to lie, and they almost never keep their word.PS:I only read the OP's post so there is no need to respond to anything that has already been covered.
edit:I changed my mind about A. Atonement yes, but he should not have to pay for it.
So, you created a dungeon with a demonic prisoner that you knew the party couldn't defeat? And you let that prison be open by a relatively simple lock?
Uh, no, there's no reason for the paladin to have to go thru any atonement.
Good point. If the monster was that bad it should have required spellcraft and/or knowledge(something) to figure out how to open. Something more than a simple lock picking, assuming that was the case.
The OP did very well in my opinion of stressing that the creature was powerful and it created a great story arch for the contunied game. The Demon was there for the Evil NPC to release as part of the story just seems like the PC saved him the trouble. Sounds like a really good GM to me.
We don't know how he stressed it since he only gave a general portrayal of the event.
To me RPGs are like playing characters in movies or from a book. By your statement, Darth Vader should have never captured princess Leia at the beginning of Star Wars as her Corvette was clearly no match for Darth Vaders Star Destroyer.
That is not even close to the way I read it. What did he say that made that comparison?
There are battles you can win and battles you can loose and i think a great game is one were you encounter both and have to deal with it.
I do agree with this. As far as the OP's story I think Doug was stressing that the demon, according to what information we have was freed too easily.
The good thing about all this is that the DM may have just created a side-quest. :)
I'm not against GMs putting PCs in situations.
But the situation was thus:
BBEG went into that dungeon.
We're tasked with getting BBEG.
Let's go.
Hmm, strange runes that say stuff. Okay.
Hmm, a large door with more strange runes. Probably say the same stuff that the other runes said.
We're still after the BBEG, right?
HOLY CRAP A DEMON THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF DEFEATING!
Whaddya mean the paladin lost his powers?
In the Star Wars example, if the set-up was "You are being pursued by a star destoryer, you have no chance of outrunning it, you have no chance of outgunning it, and if you surrender you will be imprisoned. What do you do?" then yes, the GM did a bad thing.
But that set-up is perfect for NPCs. NPC Vader and NPC Leia, yes, that works.
In this case, the GM set up a trap that would ensnare the PCs, and then used the GM-stick to club the paladin because the players didn't behave the way the GM thought was right. The GM put an undefeatable critter in the PCs path. Runes on a wall? Yeah, sure, that'll stop PCs from triggering it. Might as well say "Lots of gold behind this door."
One of the rules of GMing is that you don't create a no-win situation for the players. This was a no-win situation. "Look, a door." versus "Look, a door that is emanating intense evil, is extensively warded, and we can't even get close to it. Guess the BBEG didn't go that way."
To me RPGs are like playing characters in movies or from a book. By your statement, Darth Vader should have never captured princess Leia at the beginning of Star Wars as her Corvette was clearly no match for Darth Vaders Star Destroyer.That is not even close to the way I read it. What did he say that made that comparison?
It's pretty easy, but not intuitive.
Premises
A) Leia, Luke, Han, and Chewbacca are the heroic four (with the droids as cohorts)
B) No hero group should ever encounter anything they have no hope of fighting, since a good GM never ever ever puts anything in the game that can kill them outright if they mess up.
Given A & B are both true, then the corelary is :
Leia should never have been captured by Vader, since Vader should never have been able to be there, since Leia's ship was obviously never ever ever going to be a match for his ship.
To me RPGs are like playing characters in movies or from a book. By your statement, Darth Vader should have never captured princess Leia at the beginning of Star Wars as her Corvette was clearly no match for Darth Vaders Star Destroyer.That is not even close to the way I read it. What did he say that made that comparison?
It's pretty easy, but not intuitive.
Premises
A) Leia, Luke, Han, and Chewbacca are the heroic four (with the droids as cohorts)
B) No hero group should ever encounter anything they have no hope of fighting, since a good GM never ever ever puts anything in the game that can kill them outright if they mess up.Given A & B are both true, then the corelary is :
Leia should never have been captured by Vader, since Vader should never have been able to be there, since Leia's ship was obviously never ever ever going to be a match for his ship.
I was asking for Doug's words that led to that conclusion. Sorry I was not clear.
One of the rules of GMing is that you don't create a no-win situation for the players. This was a no-win situation. "Look, a door." versus "Look, a door that is emanating intense evil, is extensively warded, and we can't even get close to it. Guess the BBEG didn't go that way."
I disagree vehemently, and I also take exception to your way of stating it.
Even with the limited information we have, the OP stated he had a big door, heavily barred and magically sealed, with runes on it that matched everything else in the dungeon. Then the characters put the key (not picked the lock) in it.
Now, this means it was a magically sealed door that only opened with a specific key. The PCs were tasked with keeping the BBEG from unsealing the demon from his prison in the dungeon. This means the PCs KNEW that there was a big nasty demon down here sealed away inside a prison (prisons usually have doors and locks). I would guess they found the key while searching, given the way he stated it (I admit, this is guess work). However, this guesswork works for our purposes. Even if they hadn't found the key, if I put a big door, with runes and magic, and required a key, and the party kept trying to open it when they knew there was a demon sealed away in a prison in the dungeon without reading the runes, or trying to find out what was behind it... well, then they got what they deserve. I don't sugar coat games. I set up a realistic world.
When in my world, if you as a group decide to go attack a red dragon you heard a rumor about, and you're 5th level, well, you did it to yourselves. Especially if the rumor was that he'd been around for centuries, so he's obviously a big nasty dragon.
One of the rules of GMing is that you don't create a no-win situation for the players. This was a no-win situation. "Look, a door." versus "Look, a door that is emanating intense evil, is extensively warded, and we can't even get close to it. Guess the BBEG didn't go that way."I disagree vehemently, and I also take exception to your way of stating it.
Even with the limited information we have, the OP stated he had a big door, heavily barred and magically sealed, with runes on it that matched everything else in the dungeon. Then the characters put the key (not picked the lock) in it.
Now, this means it was a magically sealed door that only opened with a specific key. The PCs were tasked with keeping the BBEG from unsealing the demon from his prison in the dungeon. This means the PCs KNEW that there was a big nasty demon down here sealed away inside a prison (prisons usually have doors and locks). I would guess they found the key while searching, given the way he stated it (I admit, this is guess work). However, this guesswork works for our purposes. Even if they hadn't found the key, if I put a big door, with runes and magic, and required a key, and the party kept trying to open it when they knew there was a demon sealed away in a prison in the dungeon without reading the runes, or trying to find out what was behind it... well, then they got what they deserve. I don't sugar coat games. I set up a realistic world.
When in my world, if you as a group decide to go attack a red dragon you heard a rumor about, and you're 5th level, well, you did it to yourselves. Especially if the rumor was that he'd been around for centuries, so he's obviously a big nasty dragon.
I missed that statement. I think there is a difference between allowing someone to be put in a no-win situation which is different from an auto-lose situation and allowing someone to put themselves into such a situation.
I agree with your example though. If the arcane runes say do not open or else, but in a much more elegant way, and you just open the door then what happens is on you. Of course I would make the key to the door hard to obtain to put more emphasis on the situation.
I appreciate your opinion[...]which as a corollary assumes that not being a doormat for the players is bad GMing.Those seem just a little bit in opposition to each other, don't you think?
Moreover, the corollary is not only false, it's insulting and indicates that you believe that you can only be a "good DM' if you're an adversarial one.
See, we can both make up outrageously false claims about each other's playstyles.
However, IMHO, it's dead wrong and the logical consequence of it would be that, unless the players are incredibly good at roleplaying and self-policing, being a paladin will have no meaning other than having different mechanical advantages from a fighter or a cleric.Yep. The Paladin doesn't get anything that grants him more power than any other class (and, in fact, he's usually still weaker than the cleric, druid, and wizard).
*Moreover*, it is my experience that no GM ever handles a falling Paladin well. There's a reason that these stupid alignment discussions cum arguments always focus around the paladin, and almost always around a DM taking away that player's toys.
*If* you want to have a fallen Paladin storyline in your campaign, then it only works at all, let alone well, when it's done at the behest of the player.
If you don't have a group of "players [that] are incredibly good at roleplaying and self-policing," then no heavy-handed pronunciations from the DM on whether or not Bob gets to use his abilities this week is going to fix that.
And, frankly, stupid alignment arguments at the table and the even-more-pointless alignment threads they engender* are an indication that the historical, DM-ruled approach to this does. not. work.
* Does anyone really believe the OP is going to go back to his table and say, "Hmm - I made a mistake last week. You shouldn't have lost your powers"?
Once the code is agreed to, however, it is the GM's job to enforce it.No, it's the player's job to...
My apologies. That first para was indeed a bit too much. My only inadequate defense is that this is a touchy subject for me. I dislike the "player's rights" trend in PF/D&D (and to answer the obvious question I don't just GM, I play often as well.) which as a natural consequence tends to eliminate the discretion of GMs and their ability to run a good game, in my opinion. I overreacted and apologize again.
That said, I still disagree with pretty much everything you wrote in both posts. I think we come at this from very different perspectives and experiences, and are probably looking for very different things from our gameplay experience. So probably just best to say we agree to disagree on this subject.
I wish you good luck and good gaming.
stuff about pallys
I am going to disagree with every thing you said. If a paladin could never lose his powers without player say so many players would just abuse it. Of course many GM's also take things to extremes. With that said it takes a mature and compatible combination to make the paladin work.
Now if you want to say expand on the "you are wrong" issue then I would like to hear it, but to say the player does not lose his powers until he wants to[no matter what he does] does not make sense. The "[]" is there because I know you did not say that, but that is how it comes across.
You not having a DM that handled the paladin well does not mean it should be left up to a player since it does work well for other people.
If the player wants to keep the powers he should RP and follow the code. The DM should also allow enough room for the paladin to have some personality though instead of forcing him to be a robot.
Actually alignment arguements at the table could mean a lot of things, which can only be discovered on a case by case basis.
As an example I had a player think that a paladin had a license to kill, and would not be arrested. He shocked when I told him that was not the case. He also wanted to go around killing goblins, not because they had done anything wrong, but because they were goblin. He also knew that in my world goblins were not the evil little trouble-makers they were in 1st and 2nd edition. They were just as varied in alignment as the core races. I take that back. He would have known had he read my campaign guide which he may not have done. Should I have really let the paragon of law and goodness get away with that had he chosen to do so anyway?
Paladins are held to a stricter standard than clerics are. I am not justifying it or defending it, but it is what it is, and most players know what it is before they create the class. They may not know if the DM is going to expunge the paladin of personality, but asking a DM what he expects of cleric and paladins is not a bad idea.
Per the game rules, the paladin should not lose his powers due to any of the indicated actions. The section pertaining to losing a paladin's abilities is very specific about the conditions that apply:
The paladin did not do any of these things over the course of events as described. Releasing the fiend is the only thing that comes close; it was a stupid thing to do, but clearly not a willfully evil act. Unless you have established house rules on this issue, then no, you were not being reasonable; you should not have stripped the character of his abilities.
That said, while an atonement spell may not be called for in order to restore lost powers, I could see it being required for any number of story purposes. The superiors of the paladin's order certainly are not going to be happy about the creature being freed, and it would further be reasonable for any paladin in such a situation to seek atonement on his or her own. Even in such a case, thought, the spell should not require the 2500gp cost to contact the character's deity.
To continue with the Star Wars example . . . .
If Leia was a replacement character, that set-up also works. Players find new PC imprisoned in BBEG's lair. That would mean the no-win situation was backstory. Again, that's fine.
I agree with everything Heaven's Agent said above. It was an act of stupidity, which should have the Paladin seeking forgiveness on his own, but not an act that would strip him of his powers.